Like most other Americans, I have been saddened and angered by the news of the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas. I’ve been listening to the news on the radio off and on to see what the media is saying about it. (We’re one of those households that has yet to get a converter box or a new TV, so I have to get news from the Internet or radio, which I don’t mind.)
Initially I thought it was just a lone man who had gone berserk at a military base. Even after I heard his name I didn’t assume his Muslim religion had anything to do with the killings. My thinking was that most shootings that happen with a lone shooter out of the blue are usually a person that just “snaps” and they grab a gun and start shooting. But as more and more information became available it appeared to me that the mainstream media as well as the Obama Administration were purposely avoiding talking about the huge white elephant in the room. Namely, that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan killed in the name of Islam which makes his acts of murder an act of terrorism.
Words mean something. Facts have meaning. Politicians and the media know this which is why they try so hard to use words that express reality the way they see it, rather than the way it really is. They use words that communicate to you what they want you to believe. I think this is the core of what bothers me about what’s being said and written about the shooting at Fort Hood.
There are those, however, who see right through the media’s use of euphemistic terms to describe evil and thankfully, they write about it. Here is a great article from the NY Times by David Brooks. I don’t think he’s entirely correct but I think he’s very close to the truth when he says, “The most important power we have is the power to help select the lens through which we see reality.” As a Christian, I would put it this way: Our worldview needs to be informed by a whole-hearted, whole counsel, doctrinal embrace of Holy Scriptrue. In other words, as much as we are able as fallen human beings, we need to see reality the way God sees it. And the way he has revealed to us a small portion of his immeasurable vision of reality is through his word.
Brooks goes on to explain perfectly what’s going on within public commentary regarding the Major Hasan killings. Here’s an excerpt:
When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan did that in Fort Hood, Tex., last week, many Americans had an understandable and, in some ways, admirable reaction. They didn’t want the horror to become a pretext for anti-Muslim bigotry.
So immediately the coverage took on a certain cast. The possibility of Islamic extremism was immediately played down. This was an isolated personal breakdown, not an ideological assault, many people emphasized.
Major Hasan was portrayed as a disturbed individual who was under a lot of stress. We learned about pre-traumatic stress syndrome, and secondary stress disorder, which one gets from hearing about other people’s stress. We heard the theory (unlikely in retrospect) that Hasan was so traumatized by the thought of going into a combat zone that he decided to take a gun and create one of his own.
A shroud of political correctness settled over the conversation. Hasan was portrayed as a victim of society, a poor soul who was pushed over the edge by prejudice and unhappiness.
There was a national rush to therapy. Hasan was a loner who had trouble finding a wife and socializing with his neighbors.
This response was understandable. It’s important to tamp down vengeful hatreds in moments of passion. But it was also patronizing. Public commentators assumed the air of kindergarten teachers who had to protect their children from thinking certain impermissible and intolerant thoughts. If public commentary wasn’t carefully policed, the assumption seemed to be, then the great mass of unwashed yahoos in Middle America would go off on a racist rampage.
Worse, it absolved Hasan — before the real evidence was in — of his responsibility. He didn’t have the choice to be lonely or unhappy. But he did have a choice over what story to build out of those circumstances. And evidence is now mounting to suggest he chose the extremist War on Islam narrative that so often leads to murderous results.
The conversation in the first few days after the massacre was well intentioned, but it suggested a willful flight from reality.
Here’s another good article by Dorothy Rabinowitz about Maj. Hasan and the media’s “willful flight from reality.”
Dr. Phil & the Fort Hood Killer
(HT: Justin Taylor)
Funny story. Yesterday Grethe and I were outside playing around and she saw a dandelion in the distance and ran toward it – she calls them “blow flowers”. (It’s the dandelion after it’s gone to seed, which, according to Wikipedia is called a “clock”.) The “blow flower” was positioned in between our house and our neighbors, the Burns’. She also has this ritual of when she picks up a blow flower she tries to recite the words from the Peter Rabbit DVD that Benjamin Bunny says when he’s holding a “clock.” It goes something like this: “Breakfastime! (blows on the flower) lunchtime! (blow) teatime! (blow) suppertime! (blow)…breakfast.” Only when Grethe says it, it comes out like, “suppa-sime, beffest-time, beckfast.” It’s very cute.
